Sen. Joe Lieberman is not the first prominent democrat to cross party lines to speak for republican positions -- Zell Miller did it in the past election and by sheer coincidence due to the same issue: the war in iraq.

Lieberman has exhibited far more integrity than the overwhelming majority of Democrats who have gone from contorting position to position. 'we voted for the war because we were lied to! --->, its a quagmire..withdraw now!, ---> the surge won't work!'. I don't know what the official Dem position is on iraq is today, it seems to me they studiously wish to avoid the topic.

Politicians have a higher duty to serve their country rather than walking lockstep with their party. Does Lieberman differ from McCain on significant policy issues? Absolutely. However on Iraq they share the same outlook and mindset. Anyone who wants to portray Lieberman as trying to stab the democratic party in the back is just creating a fairy tale.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

The choice of a running mate is all about pros and cons. What assets and what liabilities would each candidate bring to the ticket? The two big questions seem to be Clinton and Lieberman as VPs. Neither one will get the nod. Here's why:

Hilary Clinton adds very little to Obama's ticket. Very few people who wouldn't have otherwise voted for McCain will swing to Obama because Hilary's on the ticket. On the other hand, she's a powerful lightning rod for the right wing. Conservatives who are ambivalent about McCain and are considering staying home or voting Libertarian will be drawn to McCain out of fear of a Clinton White House.

Joe Lieberman adds little to McCain's ticket. He's suitably pro-Bush in his actual policy statements and his voting record and he's the GOP's best example of bipartisanship. In Bush's GOP "bipartisan support" tends to mean a bunch of Republicans and Joe Lieberman. Moderates, however, aren't the group McCain has to win. He doesn't need to win the kind of voter who is impressed by bipartisanship, he needs to shore up his support among Conservatives and Evangelicals. Adding a Democrat (even Joe) to his ticket won't help there.

What giving Lieberman the nod does accomplish is remove someone who caucuses with the Democrats from the Senate. With no other changes a GOP win in November would make the Senate 50-49 until Connecticut can have a special election. Whether that's a good trade off for the GOP is a decision for Karl Rove to make.

Finally, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say not sitting Senator will get the nod for VP. Right now the Senate is balanced at 49-49 with Independents Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders caucusing with the Democrats to give them a 51-49 majority. Any Senator who leaves office to become VP will open a seat, changing the balance of power. Right now the GOP can block any bill by threatening filibuster and the Democrats have to find 9 Republicans to vote with them to get anything done. No matter what happens in November at least one side will lose a Senator to the White House. The Democrats aren't going to risk losing a Senate majority in exchange for a a shot at the White House.

The Republicans have 18 Senators coming up for re-election and the Democrats have 12 in the race. Additionally, there are 5 Republican Senators retiring. Considering that Ted "The Bridge to Nowhere is a Series of Tubes" Stevens (R-Indicted) is still in the race, the GOP will lose at least one seat. As of today, the GOP have 14 seats in jeopardy and the Dems only have two at risk (and low risk at that). It's very likely that the Democrats score a net gain of 5 seats in the Senate making the balance 56-44 for the Donkeys. With that much at stake there is no way that the GOP is going to risk losing another Senate seat.

Final odds:
Clinton as the Democratic VP: 1 in 100.
Lieberman as GOP VP: 1 in 5.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT)

So...does "ID" stand for "idiot" now?

"Gigolo"?

Is that a joke of some sort?